DefaultTrust changes

[TMAN]

There should definitely be an activity requirement in addition to the merit requirement being increased. Now it is even more dangerous to add inactive accounts to any kind of list!

- If rank was determined solely using earned merit, then you must be of at least Member rank.

I really think they need to of earn't 250 merit, but thats just my thought on it

You are right, Loyce and I missed that. Each new account would need at least 60 merit.

na mate, you missunderstood - I think the bar is far too low, 250 merit should be the minimum earn't to be considered for DT1

[1714293983]

1714293983

[1714293983]

1714293983

[1714293983]

1714293983

[1714293983]

1714293983

[o_e_l_e_o]

There should definitely be an activity requirement in addition to the merit requirement being increased.

That would certainly make it harder, but given the number of ongoing account sales, still not difficult enough (i.e. impossible).

I really think they need to of earn't 250 merit, but thats just my thought on it

Again, that would help for now, but just push the problem further down the line as more and more members (and more and more sold/hacked accounts) will eventually reach that milestone.


I suppose the protective feature here is that theymos said he will be manually rebuilding DT1 every month or so, so it would never actually happen without him realizing it first. That does essentially centralize the DT list to theymos and give him a veto over anyone's inclusion though (but I guess that's always been the case to an extent).

[LoyceV]

You are right, Loyce and I missed that. Each new account would need at least 60 merit.

You've lost me: Member rank requires 10 Merit.
I interpreted theymos' statement as saying that 10 Merit is enough, but it may go up if the Member requirement ever changes.

[Lauda]

There should definitely be an activity requirement in addition to the merit requirement being increased.

That would certainly make it harder, but given the number of ongoing account sales, still not difficult enough (i.e. impossible).

It doesn't matter if you can get an account or two to the list this way. It's only important that you can't get a big enough share. We can collectively kick out someone trying to climb up via account sales/farming without theymos intervening. Opening a thread/sending out a mass PM to the whole DT1 list would be sufficient.

You are right, Loyce and I missed that. Each new account would need at least 60 merit.

You've lost me: Member rank requires 10 Merit.

Oops, I mixed it up with activity. Ignore that post.

[MadZ]

I hope some of the newer additions to DT1 take the time to re-visit their trust lists. For instance, some guy who was selling hacked Ebay accounts and scammed a guy for $7 (lol) is now in DT2.

[Lauda]

I hope some of the newer additions to DT1 take the time to re-visit their trust lists. For instance, some guy who was selling hacked Ebay accounts and scammed a guy for $7 (lol) is now in DT2.

Would be easier if you wrote who added a particular member when pointing something like this out. PM'd krogo. His list seems very unmaintained.

[suchmoon]

I really think they need to of earn't 250 merit, but thats just my thought on it

Again, that would help for now, but just push the problem further down the line as more and more members (and more and more sold/hacked accounts) will eventually reach that milestone.

Perhaps the requirement should be top 200 (LOL) or at least top 50% of merit earners or smth like that. But there are other barriers too. I bet theymos will review it next month when no doubt some abuse attempts will be happening and will adjust it if needed.

[o_e_l_e_o]

It doesn't matter if you can get an account or two to the list this way. It's only important that you can't get a big enough share.

Ahh yeah, fair point.

I hope some of the newer additions to DT1 take the time to re-visit their trust lists.

Agreed, but to be fair, I think everyone should be taking time to re-visit both their sent feedbacks and their trust lists. There are going to be many new inclusions on DT2 as well over the coming days as things settle down, and I'm sure there will be many more cases like the one you've highlighted popping up.

Perhaps the requirement should be top 200 (LOL) or at least top 50% of merit earners or smth like that.

Hahaha. Perhaps not as strict as top 200, but certainly a requirement higher than 10 is reasonable in my opinion.

[MadZ]

I hope some of the newer additions to DT1 take the time to re-visit their trust lists. For instance, some guy who was selling hacked Ebay accounts and scammed a guy for $7 (lol) is now in DT2.

Would be easier if you wrote who added a particular member when pointing something like this out. PM'd krogo. His list seems very unmaintained.

It was just an example to illustrate the general point. Was planning on PM'ing him as well, but it seems that won't be necessary now

[LoyceV]

I hope some of the newer additions to DT1 take the time to re-visit their trust lists. For instance, some guy who was selling hacked Ebay accounts and scammed a guy for $7 (lol) is now in DT2.

Just exclude him:

Code:

~gamerfan

I'll use this opportunity to share my exclusions:

Code:

~cryptohunter
~gamerfan
~game-protect
~SmartPayMINT

Two of those are included by krogothmanhattan. Note that 1 exclusion is not enough to cancel 1 inclusion.

[MadZ]

I hope some of the newer additions to DT1 take the time to re-visit their trust lists. For instance, some guy who was selling hacked Ebay accounts and scammed a guy for $7 (lol) is now in DT2.

Just exclude him:

Code:

~gamerfan

I'll use this opportunity to share my exclusions:

Code:

~cryptohunter
~gamerfan
~game-protect
~SmartPayMINT

Two of those are included by krogothmanhattan. Note that 1 exclusion is not enough to cancel 1 inclusion.

Already ahead of you on the first one. Even easier, just add you to my trust network and let you do the work for me 

[LoyceV]

Already ahead of you on the first one. Even easier, just add you to my trust network and let you do the work for me  

That works for your view, but since you're DT2 the exclusion through me will be DT3 to the rest of the forum.
In other words, you'll have to exclude him yourself if you want to exclude him on DT2.

(Until today, I never understood this implication of custom trust lists!)

[jackg]

Already ahead of you on the first one. Even easier, just add you to my trust network and let you do the work for me 

That works for your view, but since you're DT2 the exclusion through me will be DT3 to the rest of the forum.
In other words, you'll have to exclude him yourself if you want to exclude him on DT2.

(Until today, I never understood this implication of custum trust lists!)

Neither did I to be honest


Does anyone know if I can see the default trust list? I have since removed it from my trust network...

[MadZ]

Already ahead of you on the first one. Even easier, just add you to my trust network and let you do the work for me 

That works for your view, but since you're DT2 the exclusion through me will be DT3 to the rest of the forum.
In other words, you'll have to exclude him yourself if you want to exclude him on DT2.

(Until today, I never understood this implication of custum trust lists!)

My understanding was that DT2 trust lists don't impact the rest of the forum (in terms of DT) unless their depth is higher than 2. Whether I exclude him via adding you to my custom trust list, or directly on my own list, the outcome is the same for others (unless they have a custom depth or trust me directly).

[MadZ]

Already ahead of you on the first one. Even easier, just add you to my trust network and let you do the work for me 

That works for your view, but since you're DT2 the exclusion through me will be DT3 to the rest of the forum.
In other words, you'll have to exclude him yourself if you want to exclude him on DT2.

(Until today, I never understood this implication of custum trust lists!)

Neither did I to be honest


Does anyone know if I can see the default trust list? I have since removed it from my trust network...

Just add ;dt to the end of your trust settings.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dt

[Lesbian Cow]

my main account is off DT2

I'll take 10% of the blame for that - I had you in my list but recently I replaced my custom list with the default for debugging purposes... so that screwed up my own eligibility and possibly some others. Will have to wait for the next month. And I'm hoping many other users will treat this change as a kick in the butt to go and set up their custom lists.

Added him back too.

Thanks! That was the shortest jail break ever

I already found the first user who left fresh retaliation feedback today: SmartPayMINT.
All of a sudden 5 users who left him negative trust were put on DT, but one user who left him positive trust also added him to his trust network. I don't really get why someone would add a Jr. Member after buying an item.
I guess we'll now have to start excluding users when we leave them red trust. In this case:

Code:

~SmartPayMINT

That instantly took away the negative trust for owlcatz, Lesbian Cow and yog. With some fine tuning, this system can work

Thanks! 

[Lauda]

I hope some of the newer additions to DT1 take the time to re-visit their trust lists. For instance, some guy who was selling hacked Ebay accounts and scammed a guy for $7 (lol) is now in DT2.

Just exclude him:

Code:

~gamerfan

I'll use this opportunity to share my exclusions:

Code:

~cryptohunter
~gamerfan
~game-protect
~SmartPayMINT

Two of those are included by krogothmanhattan. Note that 1 exclusion is not enough to cancel 1 inclusion.

His list looks terrible:

satoshi
        theymos
        laszlo
        bg002h
        casascius
        mwally
        Noitev
        Josh
        BookofNick
        fabrizziop
        counter
        OgNasty
        CanaryInTheMine
        Otoh
        Mjbmonetarymetals
        Lincoln6Echo
        John (John K.)
        SaltySpitoon
        canton
        Pistachio
        squall1066
        serp
        philipma1957
        dozerz
        bigtimespaghetti
        BG4
        Cyrus
        hephaist0s
        monkeynuts
        TMAN
        flora_digitalis
        TookDk
        cptdome1
        Mitchell
        vizique
        wttbs
        Ticked
        dArkjON
        Blazed
        FiniteByDesign
        yogg
        bittawm
        klaaas
        hybridsole
        greenplastic
        AT101ET
        cryptodechange
        buckrogers
        Lesbian Cow
        XXXgames
        Hexah
        elianite
        Jackblack90909
        NattyLiteCoin
        wheelz1200
        Rmcdermott927
        DaveF
        teeGUMES
        owlcatz
        bitkilo
        CryptoImperator
        dazedfool
        iluvbitcoins
        Fortify
        Luckycoin90
        BitcoinPenny
        chronicsky
        Zepher
        Hox
        Xprim777
        BTCMILLIONAIRE
        digicoinuser
        micromen
        BitcoinNewsMagazine
        tothemoonsands
        m4nki
        Lutpin
        SFR10
        Zyro
        BTCC_Official
        elokk
        Bitguy2016
        polymerbit
        nathansenn
        lebnor
        Hhampuz
        trbittr
        ChiBitCTy
        anorganix
        comit
        bobbyclee
        Kryptowerk
        wolfcoin2
        OneNattyLitecoin
        rusbitcoinuser
        Ramelius
        ThatRandomDude
        Trofo
        Kid_diK
        JanEmil
        Untold
        bavicrypto
        Crypto_Collection
        Wyospl2
        justatrader
        ClearSky8
        frankbitcoin
        ZipReg
        iasenko
        fclardycake
        BitElevation
        Heisenberg_Hunter
        guy369
        grbox2002
        ArkiCrypto
        Collectcrypto
        SmartPayMINT
        qsdqsd
        NightSabre

[tmfp]

Would it not be logical that when one leaves a positive or negative trust for someone, that one's own trust list should automatically change to either respectively include that member or exclude (~) them? Or at least to have that option in Settings?

[Lauda]

Would it not be logical that when one leaves a positive or negative trust for someone, that one's own trust list should automatically change to either respectively include that member or exclude (~) them?

Just because someone did something trustworthy or untrustworthy, that doesn't mean that their sent ratings are trustworthy/untrustworthy.

[jackg]

Would it not be logical that when one leaves a positive or negative trust for someone, that one's own trust list should automatically change to either respectively include that member or exclude (~) them? Or at least to have that option in Settings?

It kinda does.
I sent a positive to jet Cash for a trade we did and he did likewise.

We are both on each other's trust list. His trust scores impact mine based on his positive trust.
As I gave btccrazy1 a positive,his will also affect mine too.